Does the thought of a Mormon in the White House scare the Shit out of you?

B_Jingoist

Just Browsing
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Posts
354
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
101
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
You missed the point. The argument was to show how a President can act against the majority public opinion and medical establishment and follow his religious beliefs.

Just because it follows his religious beliefs doesn't mean he did it because of that. Murder is also against the 10 commandments, but that doesn't mean it is illegal because of that.

Oh, and the majority and/or public opinion are two things you should take with a grain of salt. The majority doesn't rule.
 

houtx48

Cherished Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2006
Posts
6,900
Media
0
Likes
308
Points
208
Gender
Male
Just because it follows his religious beliefs doesn't mean he did it because of that. Murder is also against the 10 commandments, but that doesn't mean it is illegal because of that.

Oh, and the majority and/or public opinion are two things you should take with a grain of salt. The majority doesn't rule.
It's good they don't rule otherwise women and Blacks would still be trying to get the vote.....................
 

spoon

Expert Member
Joined
May 20, 2011
Posts
3,206
Media
11
Likes
115
Points
208
Location
On a dark desert highway.
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Female
The Mormon in the room was my governor and, as much as I hate to admit it, he wasn't that bad. I didn't vote for him then and I definitely won't vote for him in the future, but his faith played no part as executive of this Commonwealth and I don't think it would if he were elected President.


i live in ma too. i agree he wasn't that bad, i didn't vote for him either. he does (as far as i know and can tell) follow his religious beliefs--i think this is good-campare to newt-yikes! but, the flip-flopping (to me) is the problem.
 

earllogjam

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Posts
4,917
Media
0
Likes
179
Points
193
Sexuality
No Response
Last edited:

B_Jingoist

Just Browsing
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Posts
354
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
101
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Why did he veto it then?

Text of President Bush's Stem Cell Research Bill Veto Letter to House

Didn't God speak to him?

And yes, the majority does not necessarily rule in this country but there is a problem when one man can negatively affect millions of people and cause so much suffering because of his ideology.

You provided the article, I'm sure you read it. He clearly states he was the first one to authorize funding for embryonic stem cell research. But he didn't think it was ethical to continue destroying embryos for the research. A religious zealot wouldn't do that.

And the whole God spoke to Bush is quoted from two Palestinian officials when he met with them. It is just another BS liberal talking point people believe as absolute truth, when it is just second hand information. And even so, when you talk to someone of different faiths or cultures you speak in words they understand. Muslims believe Allah guides everything in their life. So instead of him saying it was his instinct or gut that told him, they would understand that to be God. Context is an amazing thing.
 

travis1985

Expert Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 22, 2011
Posts
835
Media
1
Likes
103
Points
288
Location
Coeur d'Alene (Idaho, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
People were nervous about a Catholic president, too, until JFK promised the nation that he didn't really believe in the Church to the extent that it had any influence on his views or behavior. It was obvious before he said it, and he proved it after. I think Romney would be a similar case.

Mormophobe?
 

FRE

Admired Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Posts
3,055
Media
44
Likes
828
Points
258
Location
Palm Springs, California USA
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
People were nervous about a Catholic president, too, until JFK promised the nation that he didn't really believe in the Church to the extent that it had any influence on his views or behavior. It was obvious before he said it, and he proved it after. I think Romney would be a similar case.

Mormophobe?

But Romney has already demonstrated that he would let his church influence him in inappropriate ways; he has done so by stating his opposition to recognizing same-sex marriage.
 

B_Jingoist

Just Browsing
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Posts
354
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
101
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
But Romney has already demonstrated that he would let his church influence him in inappropriate ways; he has done so by stating his opposition to recognizing same-sex marriage.

Is that because of his religious views though?
 

Calboner

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Posts
9,024
Media
29
Likes
7,717
Points
433
Location
USA
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
But Romney has already demonstrated that he would let his church influence him in inappropriate ways; he has done so by stating his opposition to recognizing same-sex marriage.

Is that because of his religious views though?

Exactly. I think it is evident from his record that religious principle comes pretty far below political expedience in the determinants of Romney's political positions. His opposition to same-sex marriage is overdetermined, as it has always been standard conservative fare and he has never had any other position on the issue. On issues on which he has changed his position, such as abortion rights, he has always done so in accordance with the preferences of conservative voters.
 

houtx48

Cherished Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2006
Posts
6,900
Media
0
Likes
308
Points
208
Gender
Male
Romney signed gay marriage in to law once............now all of a sudden he is against it? Romeny signed state heath care into law once ......now all of a sudden he is against? Pattern here? Romney will teabag for Jesus as long as it gets him where he thinks get him what he wants. Hey Thurston, Lovey called she wants her pride back.
 

Calboner

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Posts
9,024
Media
29
Likes
7,717
Points
433
Location
USA
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male

FRE

Admired Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Posts
3,055
Media
44
Likes
828
Points
258
Location
Palm Springs, California USA
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
What on earth are you talking about? First of all, same-sex marriage was instituted in Massachusetts by the state supreme court, not by any legislation. Second, Romney has consistently opposed same-sex marriage.

Governorship of Mitt Romney - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks for the correction.

Some politicians are like the lead car which is actually getting its cues from the turn signals of the car behind. They are not actually leading. Romney is like that. It wouldn't be so bad if politicians admitted that their positions were determined only by what would maximize the probability of their winning an election, but they don't.
 

earllogjam

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Posts
4,917
Media
0
Likes
179
Points
193
Sexuality
No Response
You provided the article, I'm sure you read it. He clearly states he was the first one to authorize funding for embryonic stem cell research. But he didn't think it was ethical to continue destroying embryos for the research. A religious zealot wouldn't do that.

And the whole God spoke to Bush is quoted from two Palestinian officials when he met with them. It is just another BS liberal talking point people believe as absolute truth, when it is just second hand information. And even so, when you talk to someone of different faiths or cultures you speak in words they understand. Muslims believe Allah guides everything in their life. So instead of him saying it was his instinct or gut that told him, they would understand that to be God. Context is an amazing thing.

Yes, tertiary information often has a spin on it, and he is often made out to be a fool by the media.

It's just a little hard for me to believe that W's moral and ethical based decisions were somehow separate and not connected to his religious beliefs.
 

B_Jingoist

Just Browsing
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Posts
354
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
101
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Yes, tertiary information often has a spin on it, and he is often made out to be a fool by the media.

It's just a little hard for me to believe that W's moral and ethical based decisions were somehow separate and not connected to his religious beliefs.

Even if they are connected, does that make them bad?
 

earllogjam

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Posts
4,917
Media
0
Likes
179
Points
193
Sexuality
No Response
Even if they are connected, does that make them bad?

I guess it's only bad if you're on the wrong side of the religious coin.

-A gay man who want's to legally marry his life long partner of 18 years and enjoy all the benefits and responsibilities married straight couples have.

-Lack of federal funding for AIDS research/prevention and seeing all your friends die within 5 years.

-A 12 year old girl who was raped and forced to carry her child to birth.

-Being forced to off yourself because of Islamic Jihad.

-Dying in vain as a soldier in a religious war.

-Being stoned to death because you were an unfaithful wife.
 

Mensch1351

Cherished Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Posts
1,166
Media
0
Likes
341
Points
303
Location
In the only other State that begins with "K"!
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
2 thoughts -------- A) Yes the thought of a MORON in the White House scares the shit out of me -- and I mean Moron --- or worse yet someone who is certifiably mentally ill. In America -- if you have money and the backing of powerful people you could just win through lies, deception, half-truths and voter manipulation. Bush's IQ was of considerable concern in that he was almost incapable of perceiving the complexity of the nation's problems. AND he consistently stumbled over putting 2 coherent thoughts together in English! I'm sure some States have elected Governors or Senators who were certifiably mentally ill. Sometime in the future a test for mental stability should become part of the requirement for office!

B) The whole question of the religion of the candidate has been part of the American electoral process for a long time. When I was young every flyer I ever read for our town hall officials, state reps etc. always mentioned that they were "family people, church goers and veterans" -- we're talking the 1960's here! This was supposed to imply that they were solid stable citizens fully participating in the established social structures. The emphasis on religion in the 1960 Presidential election was the glass ceiling that NO Catholic in US history up to that point had been elected to that high an office -- although many Catholics had risen to high office in STATE elections as Governors or Senators.

The issue with Religion NOW is largely due to the 30 year "awakening" of the Conservative Evangelical vote originally "roused" by the Moral Majority of Jerry Falwell and his Thomas Road Baptist Church in Virginia. While it was assumed achievers to high office would at least be Christians (and white I might add) the social trends of the 1960's i.e. gay rights, women's liberation, no prayer in public schools, Roe vs Wade and Black power was sufficient to congeal the fear and anger of the conservatives to flex their political muscle -- once it found a voice! Up until this time -- the Republican party of Nelson Rockefeller, Bill Scranton, Everett Dirkson, Margaret Chase-Smith, even Barry Goldwater or Nixon etc. NEVER EVER EVER made the "ideology" of religion a criteria of conscience OR platform!

When the Republicans as a party crawled into bed with the Conservative RELGIOUS RIGHT, it has "morphed" the party into something most of the people I've listed above wouldn't recognize! Economics was usually the dividing line between Conservatives and "Liberals." NOW -- it is the social agenda of those candidates that takes the forefront (in addition to economic theory). Even up to GW, the "real" power in the Republican party "pandered" to the voice and concerns of the RR (relgious right) -- but never followed through on policy. While they wanted their vote and propagandized to their fears -- once in power -- they took a more middle of the road position. In that vein, the RR has felt used and abused by the Republicans so that their own INTERNAL dynamic is a "litmus" test as to who the REAL conservatives are (does the word Rino -- Republicans in Name Only) ring a bell!

All this said --- for over 30 years the Pastors of the South (and Midwest)have been telling their people ad naseum that the nation needs saving by electing Good Solid Christians to high office. It is the ONLY way to "take back" our Country and return it to the "old fashioned" values of God, family and Country. Christians united for a "cause" such as this raise BIG sums of money and faithfully turn out to the polls in droves. It's why the "wedge" issues excite them so much! In the last election, the conservative ferver for Sarah Palin had more to do with her religious convictions than it did for her actual qualifications!!

Now they're being told that they should line up behind a Mormon! And if you've ever known a died in the wool Southern Baptist you'd have no trouble seeing how this just does not fly -- even if there is an "R" behind his name at the ballot box! While the Democrats and probably most main stream Americans don't give a damn about the Relgious convictions of an office holder -- the Conservative, Relgious Right Evangelicals most CERTAINLY do care --- big time! Yes indeed a Mormon in the White House scares the shit out of them (the OP's question I believe)!

And the total indecision of the Republican Party at this point to pick a viable candidate my friends is due to the great bed they have made in "pandering" to a group that has never before had such a powerful clout of money, voice and vote! Pastors in some of these churches have had voter registration tables in their foyers. They have passed out flyers telling the faithful WHO to vote for. They have told their followers that only a GOOD Christian could ever vote straight Republican! (just can't imagine the Democrats doing this!) It's going to take quite a while for the Republican Party to either crawl out from under this dilemna OR they are going to continue this "inner" wrangling finding the great white savior to bring America back to its founding father's ideal! (or what they THINK is the ideal). Enough said! Except --- when Mike Huckaby decided not to run there was a great groan in RRight circles. If he were in this, he'd be THE candidate of choice -- period!